Welcome to the E46Fanatics forums. E46Fanatics is the premiere website for BMW 3 series owners around the world with interactive forums, a geographical enthusiast directory, photo galleries, and technical information for BMW enthusiasts.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

The solution to the problem is for us reasonable Americans to vote out all encumbents every election until they start doing the job we elected them to do, which is run the country.

If I owned a company, and all my employees bickered like congress and the president, instead of doing the job they were hired to do, I'd fire them all. I don't own the country, but apparently I'm on the board, with a vote, and that's exactly what I'm going to continue to do.

There's a reason company owners are of a minority...

__________________

"My philosophy as a businessman has always been to take care of the people who make me successful. It has always been "we" in my business conversations with others. At a certain point in a successful business it behooves one to make sure those doing a good job of supporting you are not struggling to make ends meet."

What you just did make no sense. Seriously, though... Does balancing the budget relate at all to job creation in this case and if so how?

Why can't I direct the same question at you? You're so confident not drawing up a budget will produce bookoo jobs and everything will take care of itself at that point.

__________________

"My philosophy as a businessman has always been to take care of the people who make me successful. It has always been "we" in my business conversations with others. At a certain point in a successful business it behooves one to make sure those doing a good job of supporting you are not struggling to make ends meet."

If I asked you if cleaning your windshield will have a positive effect on your stereo, will you just turn the question around and ask me if NOT cleaning your windshield will have a positive effect?

Question wasn't directed at me. I intercepted it and threw it back to you.

__________________

"My philosophy as a businessman has always been to take care of the people who make me successful. It has always been "we" in my business conversations with others. At a certain point in a successful business it behooves one to make sure those doing a good job of supporting you are not struggling to make ends meet."

There is a hard deadline to all of this. November 1st. That's when the next round of Social Security payments have to be sent out. If there isn't a deal in place to fully fund the government, those amounts are going to be significantly curtailed. There will be hell to pay on that date.

Nobody is panicking because everybody who matters understands that this is nothing but political brinksmanship with no real threat of stopping the gravy train of Federal spending.

Yes, because I believe it improves our monitary policy which ultimately leads to improved economic models, which will lead to job growth. And like Bimmerfan08 said, I do not believe running a deficit improves our job growth. The government is not the way to prop up an economy. People love to talk about the multipier effect. If taxation leads to prosperity, then why not tax everyone at 100%?

I believe the government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

Yes, because I believe it improves our monitary policy which ultimately leads to improved economic models, which will lead to job growth.

So, if you cut spending now, when do you see job increases?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 325seeeye

And like Bimmerfan08 said, I do not believe running a deficit improves our job growth. The government is not the way to prop up an economy. People love to talk about the multipier effect. If taxation leads to prosperity, then why not tax everyone at 100%?

You're an engineer, right? Shouldn't you know better not to exaggerate like that? How about the reverse? If cutting taxes leads to prosperity, why not cut them to 0%? Come on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 325seeeye

I believe the government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

You're an engineer, right? Shouldn't you know better not to exaggerate like that? How about the reverse? If cutting taxes leads to prosperity, why not cut them to 0%? Come on.

at the "engineer" remark. Not really necessary since you won't disclose your profession.

__________________

"My philosophy as a businessman has always been to take care of the people who make me successful. It has always been "we" in my business conversations with others. At a certain point in a successful business it behooves one to make sure those doing a good job of supporting you are not struggling to make ends meet."

We wont see job increases from spending cuts. It will actually hurt in the short term. But I believe that the better monitary policy will improve capital in our markets, which will lead to growth. I consider this much better than diluting the dollar, which results in bringing everyone's economic standing down.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'busa

You're an engineer, right? Shouldn't you know better not to exaggerate like that? How about the reverse? If cutting taxes leads to prosperity, why not cut them to 0%? Come on.

Can't it be both?

Ok, I did not intend to exaggerate to rediculous. The point was that I don't consider a $1 tax increase as a $3 increase in our economy as some people do. So while government spending may inject money into our economy, the cost of running deficits (reduced dollar value) exceed the economic stimulus IMO.

No, I don't consider it both. This is a good paper on my thoughts on government size. I believe we need a government, and we have to fund it to operate. But I think they have expanded to cover too many things (and cover them ineffectively).

We wont see job increases from spending cuts. It will actually hurt in the short term.

Can the country afford to "hurt" right now? At this point in our "recovery"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 325seeeye

But I believe that the better monitary policy will improve capital in our markets, which will lead to growth. I consider this much better than diluting the dollar, which results in bringing everyone's economic standing down.

I don't disagree that this is something that could or should be attempted at a time when the economy is growing. But now?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 325seeeye

Ok, I did not intend to exaggerate to rediculous. The point was that I don't consider a $1 tax increase as a $3 increase in our economy as some people do. So while government spending may inject money into our economy, the cost of running deficits (reduced dollar value) exceed the economic stimulus IMO.

People have their opinions on that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 325seeeye

No, I don't consider it both. This is a good paper on my thoughts on government size. I believe we need a government, and we have to fund it to operate. But I think they have expanded to cover too many things (and cover them ineffectively).

It isn't a conclusion based paper. It is a research paper outlining the 2 schools of thought on government's size and influence on the economy.

If there is a conclusion, it is that the government has grown exponentially. That isn't in dispute. Whether that is beneficial isn't discussed. I think the paper is worth reading, if nothing else than to provide people with real information about the government's size - rather than the subjective feeling of "it is too big/small".

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'busa

What are some of the things that they shouldn't cover that could be better done by the free market?

In short, anything that is more than our tax revenue. But specifically, retirement and Medicare are my 2 biggest gripes. Social Security was run into the ground. I don't think you could ever claim it is a successful program. Medicare was also overpromised and under delivered. It is an albatross that is weighing us down, and was put as mandatory (we can't "cut" like we can defense). So I consider it worse than defense spending because once it was in, it is in. Much like I predict Obamacare will be a future albatross.

It isn't a conclusion based paper. It is a research paper outlining the 2 schools of thought on government's size and influence on the economy.

If there is a conclusion, it is that the government has grown exponentially. That isn't in dispute. Whether that is beneficial isn't discussed. I think the paper is worth reading, if nothing else than to provide people with real information about the government's size - rather than the subjective feeling of "it is too big/small".

Fair enough. I don't have a problem with the size of the government directly, but with its efficiency. We don't need less government. We need better government. If the government was made better, instead of being made smaller, it would naturally follow that it would get smaller. If you make it smaller for the sake of being smaller, it's unlikely that it would also get better at the same time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 325seeeye

In short, anything that is more than our tax revenue. But specifically, retirement and Medicare are my 2 biggest gripes. Social Security was run into the ground. I don't think you could ever claim it is a successful program. Medicare was also overpromised and under delivered. It is an albatross that is weighing us down, and was put as mandatory (we can't "cut" like we can defense). So I consider it worse than defense spending because once it was in, it is in. Much like I predict Obamacare will be a future albatross.

Social Security has been a very successful program. Without it, many elderly would be below the poverty level. It is set until 2033 and with some small changes it can be modified to last even longer. For nearly 80 years it has worked just as intended, to the point where Americans didn't even have to think about it. Now we have to think about it and make sure it lasts longer.

The Heritage Foundation, CATO institute and other Koch brothers' projects have unfortunately done an excellent job of portraying the government as a dangerous failure. It is exaggeration. Pure and simple.

Social Security has been a very successful program. Without it, many elderly would be below the poverty level. It is set until 2033 and with some small changes it can be modified to last even longer. For nearly 80 years it has worked just as intended, to the point where Americans didn't even have to think about it. Now we have to think about it and make sure it lasts longer.

The Heritage Foundation, CATO institute and other Koch brothers' projects have unfortunately done an excellent job of portraying the government as a dangerous failure. It is exaggeration. Pure and simple.

Do you have a problem for an opt out option for individuals? In the case that an individual gambles, opts out, and doesn't plan safely for retirement, they are on their own. The government wouldn't have to pick up their retirement tab...

__________________

"My philosophy as a businessman has always been to take care of the people who make me successful. It has always been "we" in my business conversations with others. At a certain point in a successful business it behooves one to make sure those doing a good job of supporting you are not struggling to make ends meet."

Do you have a problem for an opt out option for individuals? In the case that an individual gambles, opts out, and doesn't plan safely for retirement, they are on their own. The government wouldn't have to pick up their retirement tab...

The short answer is no. I'm not ok with it. If we have a bunch of people opt out and later suffer, their problems won't be contained to them. They'll affect everyone, whether it be through emergency medical care that they can't pay for or otherwise...

The short answer is no. I'm not ok with it. If we have a bunch of people opt out and later suffer, their problems won't be contained to them. They'll affect everyone, whether it be through emergency medical care that they can't pay for or otherwise...

Evaluation method for determining who is eligible? You're assuming there might be a lot of people who suffer.

__________________

"My philosophy as a businessman has always been to take care of the people who make me successful. It has always been "we" in my business conversations with others. At a certain point in a successful business it behooves one to make sure those doing a good job of supporting you are not struggling to make ends meet."